mikebxb

C441 great plane

Recommended Posts

got back in FSX after a 2 year hiatus. Running Steam now and so far so good

Expanding my fleet of GA birds. Aside from the Duke T and the 310R Alabeo This is my new favorite. The 441 climbs out and handles great. Worth it just for the Avidyne alone. The GTN 750 and an Avidyne are an unbeatable combination.

Everything in this 441 works! The autopilot does what commanded. Everything is predictable and the knobs are easy to find and tune.. The documentation is a little weak as I have no idea where to set these conditioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'm surprised that everyone hasn't gone over to 64bit now that it is available.  I uninstalled all forms of FSX.

The only reason I still have P3Dv3.4 is for the Majestic Q400 and FSL A320.  When they come to 64bit, it will be gone too.

I felt like flying the FSL A320 the other day and got an OOM before leaving the airport, after getting the whole flight set up.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alabeo C441 still needs some love from a patch, there are typos on the panels (for example, the manual operation ignition system switches are labeled IGNITION OVERDRIVE instead of IGNITION OVERRIDE and there are some errors in spellings on cockpit tool tips).

The thing is still way over-powered too when you taxy it and the prop locks don't work as they should, i.e, you can crank it up without even bothering with any of that. You can work around all this stuff of course, and so I do still occasionally fly it, but the moment the vastly more realistic Fly SimWare C441 is patched to work in P3D V4, the Alabeo one will become a hangar queen lol.

I won't deny that the Alabeo one is prettier than the Fly SimWare one, but I want a simulated aeroplane to act like the real thing and not simply look like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair Enough. I feel that no home simulator can ever duplicate vibrations, G's, Turbulence like being in a real airplane. But it CAN simulate proper procedures, flight, climbing, descent, engine management and everything but "seat o' the pants" feel.  For that reason I'm happy with Alabeo/Carenado and THRILLED with Real Air. 

Cheers

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. And really, the only important thing anyone has to ask of any flight sim aeroplane they have is: 'do you enjoy playing around with it?' If the answer is yes, then that's all that really matters. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎25‎.‎07‎.‎2017 at 2:15 AM, Chock said:

The thing is still way over-powered too when you taxy it.

Poor mikebxb, that's definitely the wrong forum to post something positive about Alabeo/Carenado. LOL

That being said, did you even install v1.3?  If yes then your throttle calibration is way off or something similar, because with the condition levers in start & taxi she isn't moving at all.

Even with these levers at max she doesn't exceed 20kts.

Btw, knowing Flysimware's Joe Z. is reason enough for me to stay away from them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J35OE said:

That being said, did you even install v1.3? 

Yup, that was with the latest P3D V4 version, which is 1.3. That does still have all those typos in its VC and is still a way overpowered simulation of the Garrett TPE331. Like I said, you can still fly the thing and it is very pretty, as are most Carenado/Alabeo aeroplanes, but it really does need a proper beta test from someone who really knows this particular aeroplane properly, and getting someone who can spell might help too lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

Did they ever fix the start-locks?

There's nothing to 'fix'. That's the way Alabeo tried to simulate the startlocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J35OE said:

There's nothing to 'fix'. That's the way Alabeo tried to simulate the startlocks.

I don't have the plane so I don't know much about the issue.  The only startlocks I've ever used were on the J41 which worked pretty well.  I guess I should change my question to, do they model the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, J35OE said:

No they don't.  (On the RAZBAM Metro they work as they should). 

Can you explain how they are supposed to work?  I have been doing some work with the UPDATE file where the start locks are implemented and I may be able to fix them if I knew how they are supposed to work.  The way they work now is that you can't advance the throttles if the start locks are engaged (i.e. you didn't go into reverse to disengage the start locks after engine start). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the startlocks engaged the blades are at a completely flat pitch. (depending on the air and cfg file this doesn't necessary happen at 0 deg).

If you apply power (the powerlevers aren't locked IRL) the prop RPM will increase, but the blades remain at a flat pitch and basically no torque is being generated.

That's what can make taxiing interesting IRL, if one prop comes of the startlocks and the other one doesn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J35OE said:

With the startlocks engaged the blades are at a completely flat pitch. (depending on the air and cfg file this doesn't necessary happen at 0 deg).

If you apply power (the powerlevers aren't locked IRL) the prop RPM will increase, but the blades remain at a flat pitch and basically no torque is being generated.

That's what can make taxiing interesting IRL, if one prop comes of the startlocks and the other one doesn't.

So, what's unrealistic about their implementation then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, J35OE said:

With the startlocks engaged the blades are at a completely flat pitch. (depending on the air and cfg file this doesn't necessary happen at 0 deg).

If you apply power (the powerlevers aren't locked IRL) the prop RPM will increase, but the blades remain at a flat pitch and basically no torque is being generated.

That's what can make taxiing interesting IRL, if one prop comes of the startlocks and the other one doesn't.

 

Unfortunately, FSX/P3D does not allow direct manipulation of beta angle.  It comes as a result primarily from fuel flow.  So without building some complicated .dll, restricting fuel flow is the only way it can be simulated.  I have the RABZAM Metro, but I haven't flown it more than a couple of times.  I will look later but my guess is that they use a .dll that we can't see into to control the start locks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

So, what's unrealistic about their implementation then?

The powerlevers are locked and the blades aren't at a flat pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, J35OE said:

The powerlevers are locked and the blades aren't at a flat pitch.

Thanks.  That explains it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now